Google Wave Creator Quits, Joins Facebook

srimadman found an interview with Wave creator Lars Rasmussen where he talks about his recent decision to join Facebook, leaving Google behind. Apparently getting personally pitched by Zuckerberg helped. He says, "I've got a job description of 'come hang out with us for a while and we'll see what happens,' which is a pretty exciting thing." The article talks about Big vs Small companies, and notes that about 20% of Facebook's staff are former Googlers.

Comments

new boss, same as the old boss

[sakura the mc]

so he goes from a company that doesnt give a shit about user privacy to another that doesnt give a shit about user privacy.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? User privacy (or the lack thereof) is their main revenue stream!

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[trickyD1ck]

And why would these companies care, when users themselves don't?

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[blahbooboo]

Are you kidding? User privacy (or the lack thereof) is their main revenue stream!

I stopped putting anything of consequence on Facebook (including pictures) over a year ago. After seeing how much Facebook changed since I joined when Facebook was still a closed edu community (a LOT better back then too) and the endless crazy privacy settings I stopped using it. Privacy is now simple, there is absolutely nothing on facebook that I care about anymore. For example, if someone tags me in a photo, I immediately un-tag the photo.

By now, if you keep posting things about yourself on Facebook that you're concerned about it's you're own fault. Privacy is easy now for me on Facebook.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

If there was *ever* anything you cared about on facebook, then you still have something to worry about. You might not be able to see it any more, but it's still there.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[definate]

I just use a pseudonym, based on a famous person with a similar name. People can tag me all they want. I also lock down the profile so that no applications can access my data, and I don't keep any personal data on there. I lastly have different privileges for different groups of people, some don't get access to any tagged photos, photos I upload, or wall posts. No one gets to see which friends I have, that they don't also have.

I just use it more as a way to keep in contact with certain friends.

There's ways of locking it down, and this helps.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[Chrisq]

I stopped putting anything of consequence on Facebook (including pictures) over a year ago.

Too late! I've seen the pictures. I don't know who I feel more sorry for, you, your sister, or the dog.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

A problem my wife (elem school teacher) ran into and she doesn't even have a facebook account, is people posting pics of her or that include her to their facebook pages. She nor I have any idea it is even out there since it isn't tagged and then all of a sudden someone will mention a picture they saw of her on fb. We then have to track down the person and ask them to remove the pic. Her school is crazy about any photos of the teachers online and a few have been fired for something as simple as a photo of the teacher *holding* a beer bottle in a pic. It's insane and while I don't agree with the school, what can you do?

It's a real mess.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[OpenGLFan]

Eventually trickle-up lack of privacy will catch up with these companies and they will suffer. And those who hang with Facebook (and Google) will have severe hangover. It's Moby Dick all over again, with Eric Schmidt (the "creep") - the new captain Ahab.

Privacy is not, and has never been, a killer app. We still don't regularly encrypt email; we send it plaintext and leave it on google servers. NSA's pressure on Zimmerman didn't kill PGP email, apathy did.

People don't want privacy. People want Farmville.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[Raenex]

People don't want privacy. People want Farmville.

I'm not so sure they don't, but they're just not willing to give up convenience for it. If you asked users if they could magically have privacy without any cost, I'm sure most would opt for it. The problem with encrypted email is that it's not an easy default.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss

[Jesse_vd]

To be fair, it sort of HAS to remember that you were untagged, to prevent anyone from re-tagging you. And it's nice that it does do that. At least other can't easily find the photos

Google What Now?

[Rogerborg]

Seriously, can anyone explain to me in words of two syllables or fewer what Google Wave is/was (other than a Firefly reference) or why I should have bothered to find out for myself?

Re:Google What Now?

[AnonymousClown]

Google's version of Facebook - only they put a "business" spin on it.

Re:Google What Now?

[aicrules]

beta

Re:Google What Now?

[markhb]

It was the missing link between "Steal underpants" and "PROFIT!!!"

Re:Google What Now?

[Enderandrew]

Email + IM/Chat + Wiki Functionality all rolled into one.

Re:Google What Now?

[hodet]

From the demo I saw (I never actually tried it), it looked to me like an online collaboration tool for groups. You could chat with the whole group, launch shared screens for collaboration etc etc. You could add and remove users from the wave as you go. It tried to blend all kinds of things into one platform hosted on a central server. Google were never really able to convince people why they need this tool (myself included). I remember after looking at the demo, thinking how painful it might have been to actually use in the real world.

Re:Google What Now?

[tapo]

"Real-time message board for projects."

A few friends of mine have been using Wave for developing a game and game toolset, and its a weird mixture of wiki, message board, and group whiteboard, they usually discuss the latest project milestone on Skype while having running meeting minutes in a Wave. If someone can't make the meeting, they come along later and comment. There's long waves about everything from programming standards, to models and art assets, to release notes.

It's been so damn useful for project development that Google is planning to ship "Wave in a Box" so small teams like ours can deploy it on our own server, even after Google kills official support. And we will, we can't go back to wiki, it seems so damn archaic at this point.

Re:Google What Now?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Wow. The people on it must have gotten nothing done.

Re:Google What Now?

[Enderandrew]

Supposedly Google used it internally for meetings.

Someone would create a wave of the meeting agenda and invite the people who were going to attend.

As the meeting went along, everyone could edit the wave in realtime collobaterion. The agenda evolved into the meeting notes.

And if you missed the meeting, you can re-play the wave and see the steps of every comment and note as it went along.

The failure of wave as I see it isn't that it couldn't provide killer new features, or a failure to boost productivity.

The problem was that if I want to email or IM someone, I can do so through Gmail and every contact I need is there. With Wave, only so many people had it, so I couldn't colloberate with the people I needed to.

Re:Google What Now?

[jitterman]

To be fair, they ARE brilliant, but even brilliance doesn't always result in "wow, awesome!" A case in point, Wayne Cherry designed both the 1970 Vauxhall SRV and the Pontiac Aztec.

It's true that Wave made almost no ripples (sorry, bad pun), but I very much doubt "hacks" defines the vast majority of Google's workforce.

Re:Google What Now?

[bhartman34]

Wave is (since it's still operable until the end of the year) a real-time collaboration tool. It has elements of wikis, e-mail, and even chat capabilities that hearkened back to Unix talk. It's got about as much in common with Facebook as Gmail does.

Buzz is probably a closer fit to Facebook than it is to Twitter. Twitter is kind of limited (e.g., to 140 characters), and Buzz is a good deal richer.

Re:Google What Now?

[hey!]

Gosh, I remember having to explain what "email" was to people. Their reaction: "Why would I send some kind of computer message? If I'm in a rush, I'll phone. If I'm not, I'll send a letter. If I'm in a rush and they need a record, I'll fax." Hell, when radio was introduced people thought of it as wireless telegraphy. You could locate a telegraph office anywhere without running wires. Speaking of telegraph offices, many people imagined that we'd be going to the telegraph office to pick up written messages transcribed from the telephone.

We evaluate new tools in terms of how we use familiar ones. If all we've known is the hammer, then we're pretty shrewd about evaluating the latest innovation in hammer technology. But then we look at the first screwdriver and see nothing more than a very awkward way to drive nails.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook!

[Game_Ender]

This is the guy that made google-maps as well, it is quite a loss.

Money is nice

[Enderandrew]

Google has the company policy where 10% of every employee's hours are to be spent on projects of their choosing. They're known for providing their employees tons of flexibility to explore new ideas.

Lars is suggesting he is jumping ship to Facebook so he can have the freedom to see what happens. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with money.

Re:Money is nice

[Macka]

A colleague of mine used to work at Google and told me there is considerable pressure put on you to come up with something concrete and constructive from that 10%. It's not a free time to just dick about with whatever takes your fancy, it has to be for the betterment of Google.

Re:Money is nice

[houghi]

You make it sound if the money part is a bad thing.
What if this is not OR/OR but AND/AND? AND he can work on a project that he is passionate about AND he earns more money.

Re:Money is nice

[IICV]

Well but that only makes sense - it's still time you're at work, even if you're not working on a management-blessed project.

The best part of being at Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

We get to do evil now! Yeah!

Re:What's the attraction

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you think being a prostitute is popular because these women like to have sex?

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook!

[entotre]

His brother (the other guy who made google maps) will stay with google. So it seems that relations between the two internet companies, at least at the top, are not as hostile as they often are portrayed.

Re:Should have seen this coming...

[Kilrah_il]

Wow, you found out that a top Google programmer is being hired by another company for money. Oh, and he agreed to switch companies because he is being paid big bucks. Yep, you sure deserve the Insightful mod.

Most people here dream about doing a good enough job to be hired by one of the top companies and being paid big bucks for it, but when we see someone with a proven track record getting paid for it: Sellout!

Re:Should have seen this coming...

[AnonymousClown]

Mark is a 24-year old billionaire...

If he invented some incredible green energy break through, I'd be thinking way to go!
If he found a way to eliminate much of the poverty and sickness in the Third World, I'd say way to go kid! You deserve every penny!
If he came up with some sort of medical breakthrough that eliminate breast and ovarian or prostate cancer, I'd be really happy for him.

No, he didn't.

He became an instant billionaire by selling what is basically personal web pages that broadcast updates automatically.

Tesla did more for humanity and he died penniless.

Excuse me, I'm having an attack of mumbling "Bullshit!"

Re:Should have seen this coming...

[IndustrialComplex]

That website helped me connect and stay in touch with people that I normally would not contact as I'm not a 'phone' person and they are not 'letter' people.

It's been of use to me. If you can create something which becomes useful to millions of people, you don't see THAT as being worth some money?

Granted, I think people are insane in setting the potential value so high, but it's certainly worth several million. (In general, I think that advertising expendatures have become a self fulfilling prophecy. Just because it is/was self fulfilling doesn't mean that it isn't now the reality)

Re:What's the attraction

[GaryOlson]

Company paid trips to SpringBreak^W marketing opportunities with Hot Young College Girls^W^W^W^W Facebook's target market.

Loyalty

[slasho81]

The value of loyalty is completely gone in today's organizations. No loyalty to the company; No loyalty to the employees, and no loyalty between employees. I'm not advocating blind loyalty, but when people change companies every couple of years for a slight bump in salary, or a shinier title, or just so they don't appear "stagnant", it's a problem. And it's a problem first and foremost for the employees themselves.

Re:Loyalty

[Chowderbags]

What do you expect when businesses stopped being loyal to their employees? There used to be things like pension plans and long term job security. Now companies might match some portion of your 401k and at a slight downturn in the economy they might lay off hundreds or thousands so that their numbers look a little bit better. If they're willing to toss workers overboard for slight profit, workers are well within reason to toss their company overboard for their own slight profit. Give people a good reason to stay and you'll get loyal employees, otherwise you get what coming to you.

Re:Loyalty

[Matt Perry]

The value of loyalty is completely gone in today's organizations.

It should have never been there in the first place. Employment is a business transaction for both the employee and the employer. Employees have long fantasized that it wasn't, but are now waking up. Why shouldn't both parties attempt to maximize their returns? For the business this usually means getting what they are paying for. For the employee it might mean better pay or benefits, or it could be for more intangible returns such as achieving personal goals, helping others, working on interesting things, that shiny new title, etc.

Re:Loyalty

[slasho81]

You are either an economics major or under 25.

Employment is more than just business in the real world. It's a social activity and organizations are social structures rather than ideal friction reducing "infrastructure" that some academics think they are.

The economics revolve around society and not the other way round.

Re:Loyalty

[Matt Perry]

You are either an economics major or under 25.

Wrong on both counts. It's been more than 30 years since I was under 25.

Employment is more than just business in the real world. It's a social activity and organizations are social structures rather than ideal friction reducing "infrastructure" that some academics think they are.

It may be a social activity for the employee but it's most certainly not for the employer. Businesses are all about business transactions either by design or due to legal obligations imposed by government.

In any case, we are discussing loyalty between employer and employee. A business is not a person and employment is not a marriage. Expecting to stay with an employer out of loyalty is absurd. Ultimately, the relationship between employee and employer is one of cost and benefit. Are both parties deriving benefit? If so, there's no reason to change anything. But needs and desires change. The business may change direction which could lead to redundancy in employees. The desires or needs of the employee may change which might facilitate them leaving for another business.

Speaking for myself, I have been thinking of making a career change within the next five years. I am creeping up on retirement age anyway, but have a desire to work with a non-profit for which I have been volunteering over the last several years. It would mean less pay but far more job satisfaction. At my age, with a paid off house, plenty of retirement savings and a vested pension, I am willing to make that sort of change because the benefit of accomplishment and happiness outweighs my financial desires. I can assure you that the situation was reversed when I began my career 30 years ago.

Should I stay with my company out of some misguided sense of loyalty? Am I arrogant enough to think that this company can't continue to function without me? Of course not. I am replaceable and I know that. I have a lot of company knowledge in my head but others can cover for me and a replacement can be trained. I will do what is best for me and, if I leave, make the transition happen in a responsible manner for all concerned.

I suspect that Lars is in much the same situation. He created something interesting and sold it to Google. I imagine that he's quite financially secure. Now he has other priorities and wants to pursue those things that interest him and this opportunity is what he decided to pursue. Should he be loyal to Google? If so, for what reason? The company will survive without him. There are plenty of smart people at Google with many more clamoring to get in. Meanwhile, Lars only has one life and I can't fault him for wanting to live it.

Maybe this is one of those things that can only be understood with age. As you become more financially secure and the kids grow older and leave home, your priorities change. You'll experience it some day, I'm sure.

A small bet

[wonkavader]

I will bet anyone an imaginary nickel that he's there for just about exactly one year.

Re:Ok, I'll be the dumb one.

[jimicus]

"Look at what I can do, Gran!"

"That's nice, dear".

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook!

[ztransform]

You make it sound like it’s easy or something.

Why do the apologists keep trotting this lame line out. You're a big company making massively huge profits. You can afford real software developers.

And sure, I'll work on a large website that's used by millions of people every day. Oh wait, I already do.

Re:What's the attraction

[slim]

What, you think being a prostitute is popular because these women like to have sex?

Oo-hoo, what a tangent!

1. Is being a prostitute "popular"?
2. I'm sure there are lots women working as prostitutes, who don't enjoy it but can find no alternative.
3. ... but they wouldn't be the only people in the world who don't enjoy their job
4. Yet equally, some people enjoy their jobs, and they tend to be the ones who are best at it
5. So I bet there's women working as prostitutes who have alternatives, but enjoy the sex (as well as the money) and are good at it

I have never been a prostitute's client, but if I were to, and I could afford it, I'd want it to be one who enjoyed her work.

(OTOH I believe there are men who get off on the exploitation and misogyny)

Exciting

[StikyPad]

...'come hang out with us for a while and we'll see what happens,' which is a pretty exciting thing.

A deal with the devil? How exciting! What could possibly go wrong?

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook!

[slim]

Just look at the dominant languages in Google: not C++ or C. Not serious languages.

Google only normally permits their developers to commit C++, Java, Python and Javascript to their source tree.

(maybe now Go as well)

Without being snide about Javascript (since it's fairly obvious why they use it), which of these is not a serious language?

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook!

[shutdown -p now]

Just look at the dominant languages in Google: not C++ or C. Not serious languages.

Um, ever heard of Google's implementation of MapReduce? Given that it underlies their search, which is still the cornerstone of their business, I don't know how more dominant it can get.

As for the web apps part of it - why would anyone sane use C++ rather than Java for those?

And what the hell is a "serious language", anyway? According to your definition, it's either C or C++. I guess this means that there were no "serious languages" before 1972.

Wait...

[Red_Chaos1]

So "about 20%" of Facebook is made up of people who went from "Do no evil" to "Sucks to be you." I guess it's better they aren't at Google anymore, but now I have to wonder how many other people still work at Google that just don't give a fuck.